Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-10_NRC agenda packetCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE AGENDA Newport Beach City Hall, Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard Thursday, November 10, 2011 -- 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Neighborhood Revitalization Committee Members: Mayor Mike Henn, Chair Rush Hill, Council Member Ed Selich, Council Member Staff Members: Kimberly Brand, Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, Deputy CDD Director Jim Campbell, Principal Planner Steve Badum, Public Works Director Dave Webb, Deputy PW Director /City Engineer Dennis Stone, Project Consultant Cindy Nelson, Project Consultant Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney Monika Goodwin, Administrative Assistant 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of Minutes for October 13, 2011 (Attachment 1) 3. Status of CAPS a. West Newport (Council Member Selich) b. Balboa Village (Mayor Henn) c. Corona del Mar Entry (Council Member Hill) d. Santa Ana Heights /Bristol Street (Mayor Henn) i. Final Bristol South Concept Plan (Iris Lee /Dennis Stone) ii. Committee Recommendations iii. Next Step- City Council Meeting e. Lido Village /City Hall (Council Member Hill) i. Revised Draft Design Guidelines, October 2011 Draft (Attachment 2) ii. Summary of Comments Received on Draft Design Guidelines (Attachment 3) iii. Planning Commission and Citizen Advisory Panel Recommendations (Attachment 4) iv. Committee Recommendations V. Next Step - City Council Meeting 4. Public Comment 5. Next Meeting— December 15, 2011, at 4:00 p.m 6. Adjournment This meeting is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Among other things, the Brown Act requires that the agenda be posted at least seventy -two (72) hours in advance of each meeting and that the public be allowed to comment on agenda items before the committee and items not on the agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Citizen Advisory Panel. Public comments are generally limited to either three (3) or five (5) minutes per person. It is the intention of the City of Newport Beach to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City of Newport Beach will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at least forty -eight (48) hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible (949 -644 -3005 or cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov). 14 ATTACHMENT 1 wil DRAFT Meeting Action Minutes NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE Location: Council Chambers Thursday, October 13, 4:00 p.m. 1. Welcome and Introduction Community Development Director Kim Brandt convened the meeting at 4:10 pm and noted that Mayor Henn was unable to attend due to a previous engagement. The following persons were in attendance: Committee Members • Mayor Michael Henn (Chair) - absent • Council Member Rush Hill • Council Member Ed Selich City Staff • Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director • Steve Badum, Public Works Director • Dave Webb, Deputy Public Works Director • Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney • Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner • Ben Zdeba, Planning Technician • Debi Schank, Building Dept. Specialist 2. Approval of Minutes for September 15, 2011 Council Member Selich moved to approve the minutes of September 15, Council Member Hill seconded, and the minutes were approved unanimously. 3. Status of CAPS a. Lido Village /City Hall Community Development Director Kim Brandt noted the large amount of information available on the Lido Village project and mentioned the successful Open House on October 6, 2011. Consultant Tim Collins spoke regarding the public comments received for the 80% Lido Village Design Guidelines by way of many testimonies, writing, and emails. The comments demonstrated larger community engagement than expected with focused input that was included into the 90% Design Guidelines. He noted the 70+ attendees at the Open House on October 6, 2011, thanks to a well disseminated invitation by press, advertisements, flyers, etc. The CAP meeting was held in a format to allow for more active participation of guests. Public engagement was encouraged through pamphlets, 12 introductory boards explaining objectives, and red and green stickers for guests to place on materials or images that were recorded as public comment input. Visitors gravitated to landscape, hardscape improvements, street scene, and public right -of -way improvements visuals. The CAP's themes of Santa Barbara and Maritime have evolved to Coastal and Mediterranean after significant testimony from attendees. Other items needing focus are the 3 Neighborhood Revitalization Committee 2 Meeting Action Minutes October 13, 2011 necessity of iconic features and the public right -of -way improvements. The Design Guidelines are submitted through this process to City Council and would serve as guidelines to any property owner wishing to improve their properties. In response to a question about mandates, it was explained that nothing happens until a property owner takes action. It was reasoned that it is appropriate for the public right -of -way to be consistent and for the City to provide leadership in the public areas. He noted as a positive sign that for the first time eight Lido Village property owners were attending together and seven were conditionally supportive of the project. For instance, they wanted to stabilize tenancy and spruce up their properties. The eighth owner mentioned his intentions of acquiring more properties within Lido Village and moving forward within the context of revitalization and was supportive of the project. Mr. Collins reported that out of the large amount of public comments, ten that were most frequently expressed would be vetted in the final draft. He noted next week's presentation of the 90% design draft to the Planning Commission, followed by return to the NRC meeting on November 10th for a final set of Design Guidelines, including any additional CAP considerations. Council Member Hill stated that the CAP members had formulated their ideas with help from citizens' input and are now seeking merely input from the Planning Commission, not their approval. He noted the upcoming CAP meeting on October 27th for the panel and consultants to consolidate these ideas. Committee Member Selich asked if these Guidelines apply to remodels as well as total rebuilds and asked for specific guidelines. Consultant Mr. Collins said it covered all, but there were no specifics. He noted as an example if an entry was changed, certain improvements and guidelines might apply. Staff said it applied only for discretionary approval. Council Member Selich asked for the difference between Coastal and Maritime, and Council Member Hill explained that 'Maritime' has too much of an industrial feel, while `Coastal' is broader and more flexible. Ms. Brandt thanked Mr. Helm for his efforts to get the word out for the Open House. Mr. Mosher asked for clarification regarding the Planning Commission's review and Ms. Brandt said it is a public hearing for the public to participate and comment on the project. b. Balboa Village Ms. Brandt noted the last meeting took place on September 22 t and Mayor Henn was unable to attend. She recalled that the presentation by ExplorOcean was very interesting with respect to the plans for the Balboa Fun Zone, which is a keystone area within Balboa Village. The Balboa Theater renovation complements ExplorOcean's plans in the overall revitalization effort. CAP members and attending citizens deliberated on the vision for Balboa Village and Ms. Brandt believed the vision will be closer to being defined during the next scheduled meeting of October 26th held at the Nautical Museum. C. Santa Ana Heights /Bristol Street Ms. Brandt noted that the last meeting of September 21st centered on the landscaping improvement project for Bristol Street and a further refined concept for the area drawing on existing landscaping at the Fire Station and the new park. General design concepts were discussed with 4 Neighborhood Revitalization Committee 3 Meeting Action Minutes October 13, 2011 the consultant and directions were given to move forward. The CAP members were searching for opportunities to provide landscaping for both sides of the street. Council Member Hill inquired about the City's ownership of the northern part of Bristol Street and Mr. Webb noted the boundary to Caltrans' ownership was the freeway. Mr. Webb explained that the City owned the strip on the north side curving back to the chain link fence, about 40 feet, and noted that Caltrans approves landscaping such as trees in front of the chain link fence. d. Corona del Mar Entry Ms. Brandt was unable to attend the meeting on October 5`h, but heard that it was well attended. There was a good discussion regarding the circulation aspect of the lane drop, whether it should be moved closer to Avocado Avenue, and regarding a possible traffic study. Staff was asked for additional information regarding feasibility of moving the lane drop to a different place than is currently under consideration. Mr. Badum said several years ago a study was completed on moving that lane drop and follow up demonstration projects. Councilman Selich wondered if another study could be done and Mr. Badum said a minor study was possible to identify any possible problems generated by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance or other issues regarding the adjacent redevelopment work. It was noted by an attending citizen that the previous study had included Avocado Avenue and now the CAP recommends starting the lane closure at Irvine Terrace; he wondered whether that area would cause the same non - impact traffic flow as starting at Avocado Avenue. Mr. Badum noted his concern on downsizing a segment of Coast Highway to Avocado Avenue. He said a transition was justifiable, but not a section reduction should be a violation of the County Master Plan. Councilman Hill requested clarification on this item for the next CAP meeting to be able to move forward with other topics. Answering an inquiry on possible funds, Mr. Webb stated that no programs for matching funds existed. Councilmember Hill pointed out that Corona del Mar project has matching funds from the Corona del Mar BID of about $70,000. Mr. Oldman was concerned whether the traffic study showed transitioning into three lanes from McArthur turning left to Coast Highway. Councilmember Selich noted that the study showed this was not a problem and Mr. Badum agreed. Ms. Brandt said this topic will be on the next agenda. e. West Newport Councilmember Hill noted that he owns property within 480 feet of the end of West Newport Beach study area. Because 20 feet are within the 500 -foot radius, he recused himself. Ms. Mulvihill said the committee therefore cannot take any action as of this time and the public meeting was adjourned at 4:37 pm. Nevertheless, Council Member Selich provided an update on the West Newport Landscape CAP meeting of September 28th and noted that real progress was made. The landscape architect provided concepts for landscaping of Balboa Boulevard, Coast Highway, and Superior Avenue. The Balboa Boulevard concept focused on retaining the iconic trees without adding palm trees, but incorporating more canopy type trees with associated landscaping along and behind the sidewalks 15 Neighborhood Revitalization Committee 4 Meeting Action Minutes October 13, 2011 to achieve a low key, residential slow speed feel. The Coast Highway concept calls for using palms sparingly along with other broadleaf trees and water conservation type of plant material for high speed driving. Superior Avenue would continue along the same landscaping as Hoag Hospital with a concern about the height of trees and the potential impact on the view corridor. He noted that the architect will consider the ocean views. The intersection treatment and refinements for plant materials, and previous Balboa Blvd. landscaping studies will return to the next meeting of November gth Councilmember Selich suggested for staff to pull together the many good ideas beyond the scope of these projects that had emerged for possible future projects. 4. Public Comment and Roundtable Discussion None 5. Set Next Meeting The next meeting was scheduled for November 10, 2011, at 4:00 p.m. 6. Adjournment The discussion was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. 0 ATTACHMENTS 2 -3 Please proceed to the following links: Attachment 2 — Lido Village Revised Draft Design Guidelines, October 2011 Draft http: / /www. newportbeachca.gov/ Modules /ShowDocu ment. aspx ?docu mentid =10999 Attachment 3 — Summary of Comments Received on August 2011 Draft Design Guidelines http: // www. newportbeachca. gov / Modules /ShowDocument.aspx ?documentid =11089 7 ATTACHMENT 4 2 Most frequent Comments Et I : *Please expand the explanation of the study areas within the village and how they are relevant to the design g process. •Reduce architectural styles to two predominate styles; Maritime and Santa Barbara. Change to Coastal and Mediterranean. No Tuscan! Ability to update styles to progressive design solutions. *Use the public rights -of -way (ROW) incur the burden of improving the theme and character of the village to provide the greatest public benefit. *provide verbiage that outlines enforceability and incentives. *Concerns with plant materials/ palate and compatibility with coastal zones and long- term maintenance costs. •Increase pedestrian accessibility within the planning areas. Overall Design Points for Final Draft •Removal of Village Slogan *Change architectural styles to Coastal and Mediterranean. Re write of descriptive text and images •Refinement of Landscape palette to "California Friendly" *Finalize enforceability and Incentives *Update circulation elements and pedestrian connections. 2010233 • 10 -27 -11 Content and Discussion Items for Final Draft Chapter 1 Introduction Et I : *Clarification that Lido Village is the Gateway to the Peninsula not Newport. Chapter 2 Overview *Expand waterfront planning to incorporate: Provision forimr rovements pedes rte along the promenade; Reduce negative effects of cha and, insufficient parking mitigation, etc. (Sect 2 -4) boats view impa . it tri ment, fumes, an traffic *Improvement of dock replacement/ seawall restoration and or replacement of promenade with widening of the adjacent uplands as another example of "edge" improvement. (Sect 2 -4) *Better explanation of the importance of coordinated attention to "Edge Chapter 4 Landscape "conditions. *Better explain the dependence upon the public rights of way and City owned open space in accomp of i lishing the delivery of Village unification and sense of place. Better explanation mprovements to street scenes and for pedestrians Place less emphasis on vehicular movement Sect 4-5 in the urban shopping experience, •Introduce thematic street elements that improve the aesthetics of the street experience. Improved street amps with pole mounted flower baskets and seasonal decor. (Sect 4 -8) Chapter 5 Implementation •City can be a stimulus by expedited permits and public upgrades in the adjacent rights of way to leverage overall public benefits and broader revitalization. •Allow the future programming of the City Nall site to benefit the broader Village. Don't allow the Site to benefit only a few or one land owner. 2010233 • 10 -27 -11 DID A pI• Y. + ,bpk7.P Apr��# .r i IN .v iii i I't �a IMP ', v 4 _ h wadi A Ak D 'F1 i •1 ■117! c- � Y �✓ lk r µ s' a Ad r µ s' a